It may be true that it's wrong either way. Unfortunately, someone like President Bill Clinton has a lot of enemies who are happy to smear his name. So there is a potential conflict of interest for calling him out. Note that Broaddrick was close friends with the Clintons after the alleged rape, she never filed any criminal charges, she later claimed she stayed quiet because of fear for her life, however she came forward with her accusations in 1999 when President Clinton was President of the United States...
She also filed a sworn affidavit that he made no sexual advances. She later recanted that affidavit. When she was allegedly raped by President Clinton, she lied to her current husband, but supposedly told the man she was having an affair with, who became her next husband, about the encounter.
Suffice it to say, while i am saddened by the possibility that Broaddrick's accusations may have merit, she is not a reliable account in this respect. This underscores the need for victims of rape to report their accusers, rather than waiting for republican political hit men like Phillip Yoakum or Susan Carpenter-McMillan.
I often wonder why these victims find republicans to help counsel them in attacking the Clintons, and i can only come up with one plausible explanation.
But, anyway, you may also notice the claim i am responding to is quite specific about the quantity of accusations :